ExpandCollapse

New Member

The evangelical church today is being seduced as never in its history. It faces a
danger so grave that, although we have discussed this problem before, it must be
addressed again with new insight and vigor. If evangelicals succumb to the
seduction (as they increasingly are doing), then their gospel witness will be
submerged in confusion and could eventually be lost—a tragic and new dimension
to the apostasy from which the church and the world will never recover. Most
astonishing and alarming is the fact that (with few exceptions) evangelical leaders
and even the major cult watchers refuse to acknowledge this threat. We are
therefore compelled to address the subject once again with renewed concern.

An Incredible Partnership

For decades evangelicals have diligently and faithfully attempted to identify,
analyze and warn the church against cults. Included in the standard list are
Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity,
Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church, etc. Yet the most seductive, dangerous
and largest cult (many times larger than all of the rest combined) is not included
in the list! Most cult experts refuse to identify this horrendous cult as such!
Instead, they accept it as "Christian."

Worst of all, this cult (which preaches a false gospel that is sending hundreds of
millions into a Christless eternity) is now embraced as a partner in "evangelizing
the world" by many groups which preach the biblical gospel. Major denominations,
such as the Anglican and the Episcopalian church, are involved in merger talks with
this cult. Representatives from the Assemblies of God have been engaged in
"fruitful dialogue" with this cult, whose members are now widely perceived as
born-again Christians. As a consequence, the evangelical church faces an
unprecedented crisis that threatens its very survival.

The above is a severe, solemn and devastating charge to make—a charge we
have documented in the past and in support of which additional evidence will now
be given. I challenge any church leader to public debate who declares that this
assertion is false. If proven wrong, I will publicly repent. But if this accusation is
true, then a major shake-up in the evangelical church is required, including
repentance by many of its most highly regarded leaders. I solicit your help in
providing church leaders with the facts they need to identify this cult—facts of
which I myself was ignorant years ago when I, too, failed to identify the Roman
Catholic Church as the cult it is.

Repudiating the Reformation

What is a cult? In his book Rise of the Cults, Walter Martin defined cultism as
"...any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal
doctrines of the Christian faith." Though unmentioned by Martin, Roman
Catholicism is undeniably a "major deviation from orthodox Christianity" on many
"cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith," and thus, by his own definition, a cult.
Recognition of this fact ignited the Reformation! To deny that Roman
Catholicism is a cult is to repudiate the Reformation and mock the more
than 1 million martyrs who died at Rome's hands as though they gave
their lives for no good reason.

But, says someone, since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the Roman
Catholic Church no longer teaches and practices what it did at the time of the
Reformation. That popular idea is false. To counter the Reformation, Rome's
foremost theologians met from 1545-63 in the Council of Trent. Its Canons and
Decrees, which rejected every Reformation doctrine, remain the standard
authoritative statement of Roman Catholicism, and adherence thereto is required
by Catholic catechisms. Opening Vatican II, Pope John XXIII declared, "I do accept
entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent." Vatican II
went on to reaffirm Trent's Canons and Decrees. No, Rome has not changed since
the Reformation—except superficially.

Were Luther, Calvin and the other Reformers alive today, they would denounce
Roman Catholicism as the largest and most dangerous cult on earth! Yet Martin's
Christian Research Institute (like other countercult groups) refuses to classify it as
a cult. In the above book Martin emphasized that the five major cults at that time
had "a following exceeding 8.5 million persons...." Yet he overlooked Roman
Catholicism's hundreds of millions!

Infallibility, Exclusivity and Blind Submission

Answers to Cultists at Your Door presents another example. Its authors, the
Passantinos, are described as "experts in cult research [who] have spent years in
counter-cult ministry" (outside back cover of Witch Hunt). They include such
marks of a cult as the claim that it "is the only organization on earth that is
following God's will" and that its leader is "uniquely chosen by God to lead God's
people" and that it alone "offer(s) the Bible's `true' interpretation on all matters."
Again, the Roman Catholic church fully fits the criteria. It claims to be the only true
church; that its pope is uniquely chosen to lead all of God's people; and that only
its hierarchy can interpret scripture. Yet the Passantinos, like most other "cult
experts," fail to include Roman Catholicism as a cult, though it meets all their own
tests!

Mormons must blindly obey Joseph Smith and his succes-sors; JWs dare not
question The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; other cultists must submit to
their leaders. Such authoritarianism is the primary mark of a cult. The same blind
submission is required of all Catholics. Canon 212 of Catholicism's Code of Canon
Law requires that Catholics must give absolute obedience to their "sacred
pastors." Vatican II states repeatedly that only Catholicism's hierarchy can
inter-pret the Bible, and that papal pronouncements must be obeyed without
question. Canon 333 (Sec. 3) declares, "There is neither appeal nor recourse
against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff." Vatican watchdog Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger's recent 7,500-word "Instruction" declares that dissent about
church teachings cannot be "justified as a matter of following one's conscience."
No cult demands surrender of mind and conscience more arrogantly than Roman
Catholicism.

Commending Catholicism

Roman Catholicism is not only left out of the list of cults by the experts, but it is
explicitly approved. For example, in Scripture Twisting, James W. Sire, longtime
editor-in-chief of InterVarsity Press, defines a cult as having "doctrines and/or
practices that contradict those of the Scriptures as interpreted by traditional
Christianity as represented by the major Catholic and Protestant
denominations..." [emphasis his]. Sire makes Catholicism a standard of
orthodoxy against which cults are to be judged! Yet he accuses the cults of
twisting Scripture, a technique of which Rome is surely the ultimate master! Sire
indicts Mormonism as a cult for adding other revelations to the Bible—but Rome
has added far more new revelations to the Bible than the Mormon Church! Sire
declares, "There is no guru class in biblical Christianity, no illuminati, no people
through whom all proper interpretation must come"—yet that is exactly the
situation in the Roman Catholic Church! How, then, does he make it the standard
of orthodoxy?

Consider also The Agony of Deceit published by Moody. Each chapter is written by
a leading evangelical about a specific false teaching within today's church. While
Agony mostly repeats much that was found in The Seduction of Christianity five
years earlier, it is another voice issuing many of the same warnings, for which we
are thankful. Yet it, too, whitewashes Roman Catholicism. On p. 65 it states,
"Traditional Roman Catholicism...hold to biblical inerrancy." In fact Catholicism
explicitly denies biblical inerrancy! The next sentence does acknowledge that the
"messages [of Protestantism and Catholicism] are poles apart," but moves right
on without identifying the vital differences.

Page 111 declares, "The Catholic church resisted the mounting heresies with
regard to the Person of Christ, and...Protestants would continue to affirm Catholic
Christology." Again, terribly false! Catholicism's Christology is heretical. It denies
Christ's exclusive role as mediator between God and man, making Mary
"co-mediatrix"; it denies the exclusivity of His redemptive work, making Mary
"co-redemptrix" (Vatican II credits Mary with a perpetual "salvific role; she
continues to obtain by her constant intercession the graces we need for eternal
salvation"); and it denies the sufficiency of His redemptive work, declaring that
the redeemed must, in addition to Christ's suffering for them upon the cross,
suffer for their own sins here and/or in purgatory, etc. A great deal more heresy
is involved in Catholic Christology, such as presenting Him as perpetually an infant
or child subject to His mother, but lack of space prevents further detail. The
"Christ" of Roman Catholicism is just as false as its "Mary"—as much "another
Jesus" as that of Mormonism or any other cult. Let's admit it!

Several times in Agony it is stated that Protestants and Catholics embrace the
same apostolic creeds. This is a partially true but seriously misleading statement.
The implication is that the creeds are an all-encompassing statement of biblical
Christianity, which they are not. Furthermore, there is a vast difference between
the meaning Catholics and Protestants attach to what the creeds say. For
example, while affirming that Christ "suffered under Pontius Pilate," Catholicism
teaches that His suffering was insufficient. In addition to Christ's suffering, we
must each suffer for our sins in order to be saved. We can even suffer for others'
salvation (The Apostolic Constitution of Jan. 1, 1967, Indulgentiarum Doctrina,
#1687, urges Catholics to carry "each one his own cross in expiation of their sins
and of the sins of others...assist[ing] their brothers to obtain salvation from
God")—rank heresy to Protestants. Yet Agony implies that Catholics mean by the
creeds the same thing as Protestants— an inexcusable and deadly error in a book
by eminent Christian scholars written to point out errors within the church!
Though this and the other books cited above contain much that commends them,
their approval of Catholicism is tragically misleading.

The false portrait of Roman Catholicism persists in Agony. On p. 244, after
correctly condemning the sale of indulgences that led Martin Luther to nail his 95
theses to the chapel door at Wittenberg's castle, the editor/compiler of Agony,
Michael Horton, writes, "It would not be fair, of course, to interpret the entire
history and character of Roman Catholicism by this tragic fund-raising scheme...."
The implication is that Rome has changed for the better, which is false. Though
not sold as blatantly now, indulgences are still an important part of Catholicism's
salvation.

Salvation by Works

The deviation by Catholicism from biblical Christianity goes to the heart of the
faith, to salvation itself, and thus affects the eternal destiny of those who are
deceived thereby. Roman Catholicism rejects salvation by faith and preaches a
false gospel of works that cannot save. Salvation is not in Christ but in the Church
through submission to its edicts and sacraments. The Basic Catechism of
Christian Doctrine calls the sacraments "the chief means of our salvation."

The first of the seven sacraments is baptism, which is performed upon 98 percent
of Catholics as infants. It is declared in Canon 849 to be the means "by which
men and women are freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God...." The
Basic Catechism declares that baptism "is necessary for salvation...cleanses us
from original sin, makes us Christians...." Another sacrament is the Mass, which
the Catechism declares to be "one and the same Sacrifice with that of the Cross,
inasmuch as Christ... continues to offer himself...on the altar, through the ministry
of his priests." Canon 904 states that "the work of redemption is continually
accomplished in the mystery of the Eucharistic Sacrifice," thus denying Christ's
triumphant "It is finished!"

A Flickering Candle

Let me remind you of Latimer's last words, spoken through the flames to his
companion who was bound to the same stake: "Be of good courage, master
Ridley...for we shall by God's grace this day light such a `candle' in England as I
pray shall never go out!" Tragically, the "candle" lit by hundreds of thousands of
faithful martyrs, if not already out, is barely flickering and in danger of being
snuffed completely. Paul Crouch, head of the largest Christian TV worldwide
network, demeans the martyrs by calling the issues they died for mere
semantics; and he makes a mockery of the Reformers by declaring orthodox the
heresies that sparked the Reformation.

Lovingly Confront and Inform

Those who believe Rome's lies and follow her gospel of works for salvation are
lost. Failing to recognize this fact, many evangelical leaders and cult experts have
themselves been deceived by Rome and need to be confronted and informed.
How tragic to assume that Catholics are Christians who merely have some
peripheral beliefs and practices that seem peculiar to Protestants but which will
not prevent them from being saved. A false gospel is a false gospel, and it damns
those who believe it, whether preached by Mormonism or Catholicism. A cult is a
cult. Roman Catholics, like the members of other cults, need to be treated with
compassion, warned of cultic lies, and presented with the true gospel which alone
can save them.

If you are concerned about the growing cooperation between Catholic
organizations and major evangelical ministries such as InterVarsity, Campus
Crusade For Christ, Youth With A Mission, the Billy Graham Evangelistic
Association, Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship, Paul Crouch's TBN, Pat
Robertson's CBN, etc., please write to them and ask where they stand on this
critical issue.

The questions could be: 1) What is your organization's position regarding Catholic
doctrines? 2) What is your position regarding organizational participation with
Catholics in matters of world evangelization? 3) Are you presently either officially
or unofficially involved with any Catholic lay or clerical groups or organizations? If
so, on what basis...and to what end?

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Sadly, many Protestant groups hold the same false doctrines as the RCC: Forbidden religious titles, clergy/laity separation, infant baptism, some baptismal mode other than immersion (burial, Rom. 6), church offices not ordained in the Bible, earlthy heads of the church, physical headquarters, church names that give glory to men rather than Christ, improper observance of the Lord's Supper (if any at all), instrumental music in worship (an OT not NT practice), tithing (an OT not NT practice), doctrine formulating boards, paintings of Jesus in their buildings, paintings of Jesus as a white hippie, etc.

And, just like Catholicism, Protestantism teaches a false gospel. The RCC says that sinful man can expiate his own sins and those of others by suffering, and that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient and we must therefore go to purgatory, and that's certainly wrong, but the Protestantism says that man is saved by passive beliefism. Sola Fide (Faith Alone) is the Protestant Gospel that James taught against (Jas 2:24) So, what's the conclusion? Protestantism must be a cult too!!! Protestantism denies Peter's teaching that "baptism saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" and when men ask "What must we do?" Protestantism does not answer what Peter did "Repent & be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" but rather Protestantism answers "just believe in Jesus" -- well, even the demons believe, James says. Paul wouldn't have been able to write his Roman epistle or Galatians ch. 3 to a Protestant church, because when he would say "as many of you as were baptized" everyone would skip the chapter saying "none of us were" or "some of us were, but it was pointless and we don't know why we even did something that stupid." And Peter couldn't write 1 Peter 3 to a Protestant church because when he says "baptism saves you" they'd say "no it doesn't, because we refused to be baptized" or "Peter you may be an apostle and you may be inspired by the Holy Ghost but you're still dead wrong on this! We are saved by faith only! Didn't you ever read Martin Luther's writings, Peter? He's alot smarter than you!" Can anyone say cult? I can: CULT! And when Jesus said "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" all the Protestants would leave with the Pharisees and Scribes! Can anyone say cult? I can: CULT! And when the Hebrew writer says in chapter 10 that continuance in wilfull sin will cause a Christian to have nothing to look forward to except vengeance and fire they say "Oh, we're eternally secure! Once saved always saved!" Can anyone say cult? I can: CULT!

ExpandCollapse

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

I was just down in Corpus Christi for about three days two weeks ago with my father. We came home with a stringer of red drum and speckled trout, which we caught from our boat out in the bay just off of Ingleside. We also stayed for an evening in the OMNI hotel there in downtown Corpus Christi (which means "Body of Christ" and was named so by the Franciscans in honor of the Feast of Corpus Christi in the Catholic Church - referring to the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist) at no charge. Our supplier, Sysco Foods, had a food show there one of the days and paid for one night if we checked into the show. The other two nights we spent at the Best Western there in Ingleside.

Forbidden religious titles

It looks like Paul was part of this cult, practicing these forbidden religious titles.

"I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel." 1 Cor 4:15

"My brothers and fathers, listen to what I am about to say" Acts 22:1

"my child ONesimus, whose father I have become" Phil 10

clergy/laity separation

It looks like the New Testament church of the Bible was part of this cult.

"the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God" Acts 20:28

"They appointed presbyters for them in each church" Acts 14:23

"appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you" Tit 1:5

We get the English term "priest" from the Middle English "preost", which is derived from Old English "prost:, from the Late Latin for presbyter. (Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

infant baptism

It looks like St. Peter was part of this cult.

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (Acts 2:38-39)

Origen and the church he attended was part of this cult. He wrote in A.D. 244, "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11).

The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth.

Augustine was also a member of this cult, for he taught in A.D. 408, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39)

instrumental music in worship

I smell "Church of Christ".. *snif* *snif*

I helped a former Church of Christ adherent join the Catholic Church two years ago as his sponsor in the RCIA process. His family sure didn't take it very well.. but his reading of apologetics for several years left him with one conclusion: the one historical Christian faith.

His name is Brad Cobb and he lives in Sugar Land, Texas with his wife, Christina. If you would like to see a picture of me, Christina, Brad, and Christina's parents right after he was received into the true "Church of Christ" at St. Mary's at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX, then click here: http://www.boerne.com/temp/brad&fam.jpg

ExpandCollapse

Guest

Hi Carson,

I have been monitoring many of your posts and have to compliment you on your logical approach.

I am not sure where all this hatred for the Catholic Church has come from. I have never heard a Catholic say his protestant brothers belonged to a cult. We all are christians and believe that Jesus is our Lord and Savior.

I just hope and pray that by my actions and not my words I can help open the eyes of my fellow christians since I myself can never bring anyone to the true church that Jesus established, it is only Gods grace that can do that and I pray to our Lord that he opens the hearts and minds of our brothers.

I think it interesting that today as Catholics we celebrate Jesus' gospel in which he established his church and set St. Peter as the earthly head of his church with the infallible power regarding faith and morals.

To my protestant brothers who fear and hate the Catholic church and the papacy, show me what evil has come from Pope John Paul II. What evil has he done. It is written that a good branch will bear good fruit. Just look at the Catholic church, the longest establiched christain religion, the largest christian religion.

Just as a side note I will have to credit my increased in faith and understanding of my Catholic faith to a Southern Baptist who left the Catholic church all for the wrong reasons. He was not taught well as a Catholic and fell prey to the misconceptions of many protestants. Things like calling no man father, no meat of Friday, praying to statues and devotion to Mary. I think many protestants would be surprsied to find out that Luther had great devotion to Mary. The claim that the Catholic church has left their roots is false and can be proved by a sincere study of the teachings of the early church fathers. I think many protestantsm should look at their own beliefs today and compare them to their early church fathers 500 years ago and they will find many of their beliefs conform to present day values, such as abortion, contraception, etc.

Keep up the good work Carson, I wished I could have been and WYD in Toronto but was busy with a mother sick in the hospital. Toronto is just over the lake from me in central NY.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

1) Paul is not giving himself the tiltle of father but is referring to a quality of relationship he has with others.

2) You badly abuse Ats 2:38,39. Clearly Peter is saying that the promise si for all. It is not necessarily the case that Peter is saying that baptism is for infants.

3)Offices are functional, not hierarchicial, in nature. That doesn't deny authority either. They don't imply a different status (such as "clergy" and "laity" do) but rather a differnet function (see Romans 12: 3-8 for example)

4) There is no one institutional church of Christ. The church is a body, a community, not an instituion. in the Greek "ekklesia" never carries the connotation you apply.

ExpandCollapse

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

You commented, "Paul is not giving himself the title of father but is referring to a quality of relationship he has with others."

Absolutely! Paul's fatherhood over his children is a spiritual fatherhood. Through the Gospel, Paul, as pastor, represents God the father as the representative shepherd of the sheepfold.

Jesus is using hyperbole in Matthew 23:9. If this is not the case, then you are forbidden by your Lord not to call your father "father", nor any of your teachers "teacher" under pain of sin.

The standard objection to Catholics calling their pastors "father" stops short of self-application in light of the objector's own life experience.

You suggesed, "You badly abuse Ats 2:38,39. Clearly Peter is saying that the promise si for all. It is not necessarily the case that Peter is saying that baptism is for infants."

No, it's not necessary. But, it's supportive.

Nowhere in the early Church - I repeat, in no place in Christianity at any time nor place in the early Church - was infant baptism even debated. It was the universal practice at all places in all times by all Christian churches.
Now, it is true that infant baptism dropped in numbers in the fourth century, but this was not due to a rejection of infant baptism per se; it was the recognition that baptism forgave sin and that the sacrament of penance was then administered only after a great deal of public penance; so, parents would wait to baptize their children, fearing that otherwise, their children would have to undergo such penance if they sinned grievously after their baptism. If infant baptism runs contrary to the Gospel, then the L.D.S. Church is correct.

You wrote, "Offices are functional, not hierarchicial, in nature. That doesn't deny authority either. They don't imply a different status (such as "clergy" and "laity" do) but rather a differnet function (see Romans 12: 3-8 for example)"

I agree completely with you. This is why we're all priests of the priesthood of believers. But, we have different functions in this one priesthood. Our pastors in the Catholic Church are what we term "ministerial priests" because their function is to be ministers. In the liturgy, the celebrant addresses the congregation as "my brothers and sisters".

You wrote, "There is no one institutional church of Christ. The church is a body, a community, not an instituion. in the Greek "ekklesia" never carries the connotation you apply."

Actually, I would go even further than you do and call the Church what the Bible calls it: the household of God. In Greek, there isn't a parallel to the English term "family"; household is employed instead. The Church is the Family of God. It's the Body of Christ.

According to Protestants, the Church is invisible; the "soul of Christ" would serve as a better metaphor for the Church over and above "body of Christ" if this were the case.

A body is visible. It is living, breathing, and usually, quite dirty. Just as Jesus' body had filth, grime, sweat, tears, and blood on it in Palestine 2,000 years ago, so is his Church covered with filth today. But the Body remains. The Catholic Church is organically the same church as the one in Acts. It's bigger, it's more developed, it has grown. But, it's the same. And, it's still one, united around the sacerdotal chair of Petras.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

I am not sure where all this hatred for the Catholic Church has come from. I have never heard a Catholic say his protestant brothers belonged to a cult. We all are christians and believe that Jesus is our Lord and Savior.

Click to expand...

Amen. I'm not sure where all this hatred comes from either but I know where it goes as does anyone living in my country.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Daniel:
You say "Tell me what evil has come from the RCC." Have you not read a newspaper or turned on a TV lately? If you haven't, I know you've at least been on the Internet, so you're obviously not being honest with yourself.

As for the ordination of presbyters: that's not a clergy/laity separation as practiced in the RCC. The RCC's clergy laity division includes such things as a denial of James 5:16 and practicing the doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Conquerers of the people) "which thing I hate," Jesus says. Embedded in this, is also the idea that the clergy is always right and that the laity cannot understand anything.

And Paul didn't go around complaining if you didn't add the word "father" before his name when you addressed him - NOR did he claim that people should call him father BUT "I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written" (1 Cor 4:6)

And on instrumental music, wasn't it first authorized in the RCC by Vitalian in the year 666? And even then, didn't many of the RCC's own churches not agree with it? And wasn't the use of it in worship one of the issues that divided the East and West? And wasn't it abolished in 1074 by Gregory? And didn't Thomas Aquinas say "The church does not use instrumental music, harps, and psalteries to praise God that she may not seem to Judaize"???

I'm not sure where all this hatred [of Catholicism] comes from (WinterMoon)

Click to expand...

Well then, let me tell you: It comes from the fact that Catholicism sends people to hell. "Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way." (Psa 119:104) When you read the Word of God and thereby get understanding then you hate Catholicism.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

1) I gather that you deny that "father" in the RCC is a title. YOu would associate it with "pastor" rather than "reverend"?

2) Some correction about your histroy on the topic of baptism. Tertullian advocated the postponement of baptism until such time as the infants could make their own decision so as not to jeopardise the spiritual future of their sponsors. So while you may argue that infant baptism was permitted from a very early time, it was not seen as required in the way it is now. It was not the only practice. Nor was there consensus on sacramentlaism or sacerdotalism. Neither is the mode used then the one typically used now. So it cannot be said that the RCC today follows the practice of the first church. It is not true to say that there was no debate on the question of infant bapstism.

3) The RCC does not accept the priesthood of all believers as that term is understood in protestant circles.

4) "According to Protestants, the Church is invisible; the "soul of Christ" would serve as a better metaphor for the Church over and above "body of Christ" if this were the case."
This is incorrect. Protestnats do not hold the the church is invisible as if it cannot be seen. It is invisible in the sense that it cannot be identified with a single organisation of believers. The RCC may well contain people who belong ot the Body of Christ. it is not that Body itself however, in totlaity or even in a particular way.

You begin by denying that ekklessia can have the meaning attached by RCs and finish by saying that it does. That is of course a nice little fallacious circle. In fact a lot of your thinking on the Church is ciuclar, assuming the RC model. You never do actually deal with the NT teaching, but then the RCC idea has little or nothing to do with the NT teaching on ecclesiology.
The unity you assert is also quite laughable, given that there are so many sects within RCism.

Administrator

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Like he isn't prejudiced, eh? Mr. Hunt is in for a rude awakening when He stands in front of Christ.

If I may take the extreme liberty here:

Jesus: Daaaaaaaaaaave? WHAT didn't you understand about my giving the keys of my kingdom to Peter? You somehow lose the ability to read and understand the plain English translation?

Hunt: But, but, but, but....

Jesus: And how DARE you talk about MY MOTHER like that!!! If I were just an ordinary man I would clean yer clock for the insults you have heaped upon Her over that miserable lifetime of yours!! You are fortunate that I am extremely merciful and loving, even to my enemies, much less my "friends" who insult my Mother.

Hunt: But, but, but, but....

Jesus: And then to top it ALL, you insult ME? ME!!!! You pretend to love me and go around telling people that I don't keep my promises to protect my Church, the BRIDE I DIED FOR, from being prevailed against by the gates of hell? Did you cut that verse out of your Bible?

Hunt: *gulp* (sweating bullets now)

Folks, I'd pay some REAL GOOD MONEY to be there when this goes down.

(Hey, if youse guys can have fun trashin' the Church with this drivel, then I can post my own drivel trashin' Mr. Hunt, right? Fair's fair!!!)

Anyhow, to answer some questions:

You badly abuse Ats 2:38,39. Clearly Peter is saying that the promise is for all. It is not necessarily the case that Peter is saying that baptism is for infants.

Your confusion comes from the fact that you do not think in terms of the Covenant of God. Stop and imagine yourself to be a Jew in the first century at this point in time. You are accustomed to the Old Covenant in which your infant children are entered into the kingdom by virtue of circumcision. They also are permitted to partake of the Passover AS SOON AS THEY CAN CHEW AND SWALLOW. The Old Covenant includes the youngest of the young.

Now, as a Jew, you are hearing of this New Covenant in the Blood of Jesus, who is being called the Christ. You are hearing the terms. Can you imagine that these Jews, who are used to having their whole families included in the covenant, would readily accept a covenant which now EXCLUDED their children?

GET REAL!!! They would have walked away in DROVES!! There is no way they would have gone from an all inclusive covenant to a selective covenant which excluded a portion of their families!!! And to top it off, Hebrews says that the New Covenant is a "better covenant which speaks of better things". How would the New Covenant be a better covenant under these conditions? It would be a WORSE COVENANT because you are excluding a portion of your family from God's grace!!

Offices are functional, not hierarchicial, in nature. That doesn't deny authority either. They don't imply a different status (such as "clergy" and "laity" do) but rather a differnet function (see Romans 12: 3-8 for example)

Yer kidding, right? Rom. 12: PROVES that the offices are hierarchial, especially verse 4. It speaks of offices, and offices carry authority. Acts also speaks of offices when the election to replace one Judas the betrayer took place. Notice that the office continues and does not end with the death of the first apostle to hold that office.

Covenants are based upon a hierarchial modiality which has a patriarchial headship. Study the Old Covenant to see how a covenant is set up. Be sure to study the families of the Old Covenant. A kind is not a prime minister, and vice versa. A priest is not a high priest. Laity is not clergy. A son is not a father in authority. We are NOT all equal.

There is no one institutional church of Christ. The church is a body, a community, not an instituion. in the Greek "ekklesia" never carries the connotation you apply.

Psalms 22:22 talks about the eklessia, which had reference to the kingdom of God, the people of the Hebrew nation. We see this further discussed in Matthew 21: 33 - 46 where Jesus prophecies the end of the Hebrew nation as the administrators of the kingdom (and thus, they are the kingdom themselves) and the giving of the kingdom to the Church. Denial of the physical aspect of the kingdom is semi-gnostic in nature, as it gives the idea that somehow the kingdom, to be really and truly of God, must be spiritual in nature and not physical. Yet Christ came to redeem not only the soul of man, but the body also. He came to set all things back in order, that man might worship with body and soul.

Protestantism invented this strange idea called "the invisible kingdom of God" because they desparately wanted to convince themselves that the Church, headed by the bishop of Rome here on earth, was not really the kingdom. They knew that if the Church is really physical and earthly, it would be realized eventually by those whom they were teaching, that their rebellion was indeed against the kingdom which Christ established on earth. Thus the idea that the "true Church" (filled with 'true Christians') is spiritual and unseen in nature and not earthly and headed by a human person vicairous Christous.

The kingdom of God is a covenantal family. It has hierarchial makeup, as do all families or groups of peoples. It has a presence on earth which can be seen and heard, thus it is the "light upon a hill" which is not to be put under a basket. If you study a covenant and how it is made up, you will understand how the Church, headed by the Holy Father in Rome, meets all the requirements for a covenantal family.

There is a good book on covenantalism, written by Ray Sutton. It is located at the Institute for Christian Economics web page under FREE BOOKS. This is a Protestant web site (in case you wonder). The book is THAT YOU MAY PROSPER by Ray Sutton. Read it free online at that site.

Sutton's book gives a good foundation of what a covenant it, the 5 principles which make a covenant and make it function, and how they apply in Scripture. If he ever finds out about the familial nature of God's covenant, he will no doubt convert to the Church. What he gives is the skeleton -- the necessary framework. What the ancient catholic faith gives you in the familial aspect of the covenant is everything which goes on the skeleton and makes for beauty.

ExpandCollapse

<b>Moderator</b>

Moderator

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:Your confusion comes from the fact that you do not think in terms of the Covenant of God.

Click to expand...

Your confustion comes from the fact that you do think in terms of a covenant. The covenant was given to the Israel not the gentiles, not the Christians.

Here is the covenant the New Testament often refers to:
Jer.31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
--We do not belong to the house of Israel, nor to the house of Judah!

Stop and imagine yourself to be a Jew in the first century at this point in time. You are accustomed to the Old Covenant in which your infant children are entered into the kingdom by virtue of circumcision. They also are permitted to partake of the Passover AS SOON AS THEY CAN CHEW AND SWALLOW. The Old Covenant includes the youngest of the young.

Click to expand...

Those were Jews of the Old Testment. New Testament Christianity did not replace Judaism. We do not believe in replacement theology. The Church (not the Roman Catholic Church, the church at Jerusalem, or any other kind of church) did not replace the Temple or Jewish worship. Baptism did not replace circumcision. The very fact that there was speaking in tongues and other signs and wonders done by the Apostles was to verify to the Jews that the message that they had was from God, though it be different, not needing circumcison or the law. This was something spoken of and prophesied of in the Old Testament, but not clearly understood. The Jews expected a Messiah to come and set up an earthly Kingdom. When He did not, they rejected Him. They still reject Him. If you demand that one must have works (baptism, sacraments, etc.,) you have undermined the grace of God in salvation, and have made it hopeless for anyone to ever get to heaven. In effect you (the Catholic Church) have taken away the keys, and damned the people to Hell. Salvation is by faith alone, not of works, lest any man should boast.

Now, as a Jew, you are hearing of this New Covenant in the Blood of Jesus, who is being called the Christ. You are hearing the terms. Can you imagine that these Jews, who are used to having their whole families included in the covenant, would readily accept a covenant which now EXCLUDED their children?

Click to expand...

They were not hearing of a covenant; they were hearing the gospel. Get your facts straight.
Peter spoke directly to their hearts in Acts 2:

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
--That is the gospel. They were accountable for it. At the end of the day 3,000 were saved. No covenant! They were born again, adopted into God's family; they became a child of God--not by baptism, but by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

GET REAL!!! They would have walked away in DROVES!! There is no way they would have gone from an all inclusive covenant to a selective covenant which excluded a portion of their families!!! And to top it off, Hebrews says that the New Covenant is a "better covenant which speaks of better things". How would the New Covenant be a better covenant under these conditions? It would be a WORSE COVENANT because you are excluding a portion of your family from God's grace!!

Click to expand...

I am not the one that has lost touch with reality here. Those in the Catholic Church have because they know not the Scriptures. They walked away from a covenant, and in many cases their own families, faced persecution, and walked into a living relationship with Jesus Christ. It wasn't religion and covenants they were concerned with. Christ had changed their lives. He had given them a new life. They had a living personal relationship with Christ as their Saviour. Do you?
DHK

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!